Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV25753, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25753    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Trentargus Holt (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Avis Budget Group (“Avis”), erroneously named and served herein as Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, Cerner Corporation (“Cerner”), Ezekiel Murphy (“Murphy”), and Enjoli Kawana Pitcher (“Pitcher”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for March 28, 2023. 

Defendants Avis, Cerner, and Murphy (collectively, “Defendants”) now move to continue the current trial date for 120 to 180 days.  No opposition to the motion has been filed. 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Here, Defendants argue there is good cause to continue the current trial date because Plaintiff has treated with healthcare providers in the state of Texas for injuries related to the subject accident, but Plaintiff has refused to execute authorizations for the release of the records.  Defendants assert that as a result, they must seek an order issuing out of state commissions to take the healthcare providers’ depositions.  Defendants provide they have reserved a hearing date for July 31, 2023, after the current trial date, to obtain the out of state commissions.  Further, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s physical examination has not gone forward because Defendants require Plaintiff’s out of state medical records for a proper exam.  Lastly, Defendants contend that Pitcher has been unavailable for service, but Defendants recently obtained an address from her and are attempting to serve her with their cross-complaints. 

As to Defendants’ contentions regarding a motion for issuance of out of state commissions, to date, no such motion has been filed.  Moreover, the Court notes that it does not hear requests for issuance of out-of-state commissions by way of noticed motion.  Instead, issuance of these commissions is a ministerial act, and is done by Clerk of the Court located at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  The Court’s records show that eight Commissions to Take Deposition Outside of California were filed and issued by the Court Clerk in this matter on January 9, 2023.  Nevertheless, the relevant factors weigh in favor of a continuance.  Pitcher has been named as a defendant in Plaintiff’s complaint and as a cross-defendants in Defendants’ cross-complaint, but proof of service showing service of the pleadings on Pitcher has not been filed.  Rather, Defendants represent that they have obtained an address from Pitcher and are attempting to serve her at the address.  Moreover, no alternative means are identified to address the issues raised by Defendants, including the need for additional time to complete Plaintiff’s physical examination, and no prejudice is identified that would result if the trial date is granted.  Therefore, there is good cause for a continuance.  However, given the age of this case, and because there have already been two trial continuances, the parties must expect no further continuances.  They must plan all motion and discovery practice accordingly. 

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is granted.  The March 28, 2023 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The March 14, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date. 

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 1^st day of March 2023